og12-sc-7 previously & in the past

liliannechang · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:04:12

在网上看到这样讨论：
问题：nonameee wrote:Now, what I am also not sure about is the word order:

"... it would in the past have conceded ..."

The sentence with the underlined portion just doesn't sound right. I think, it would be better like this:

"... it would have conceded in the past to its rivals."

Please clarify.

答：That's a great question!

As a general rule, it is considered better form not to split up a verb. Splitting infinitives is particularly egregious ("to boldly go . . ."), but aside from the word "not", it's usually better to leave all parts of the verb contiguous.

I don't know the source of this question, but it don't think it reflects well on that source that the correct answer, E, has the form:

. . . it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

I would avoid that in my own writing. Here, the words "in the past" split up the verb "would have conceded". I think either

. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.

is an improvement over the OA answer of this question; of these two, I prefer the latter, because it sounds better to have the indirect object ("to rivals") immediately following the verb. Even better, I would ditch the words "in the past" and use the word "previously" in its place:

. . . it previously would have conceded to rivals.

The verb is not split up, the indirect object immediate follows the verb, and the "in the past" idea is expressed succinctly in a single word. BAM! I like this final version much much better than the OA. Of course, remember, in GMAT SC, the goal is not to create the best possible version, but only to find the best of the five, and I grudgingly admit, (E) is the best of the five given this particular selection.
Does this make sense?
Mike
我的问题：蓝色阴影部分解释不是很明白？OG12上D说，the placement of in the past makes it unclear whether it is supposed to modify rivals or would have conceded. 怎么能说. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past. 更better呢，虽然还有下文？

如果换成：it in the past/previously would have conceded to rivals好不？
D去掉previously后，和E比起来，选哪个？

liliannechang · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:09:26

http://www.beatthegmat.com/question-about-an-og-question-t88009.html

GMAC frequently places an adverb between a helping verb and the verb being helped. The following examples are all from OAs in the OG12:

are IN EFFECT told
have NEVER been sighted
can HARDLY be said
can CONSTANTLY change
have RECENTLY discovered
were EVENTUALLY exhibited
were FIRST aired
can QUICKLY analyze
would LATER make
are CLOSELY related
has ALREADY stimulated
is WIDELY accepted

Thus, would IN THE PAST have conceded is in keeping with GMAC's rules.

liliannechang · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:14:18

angela_lovegmat wrote:Quote:. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.

Hey,Mike ,the latter would cause confusion ;"in the past" appears to modify "rivals".we can place it like the correct sentence in the OG.

Mike回复：Dear angela_lovegmat,
The prepositional phrase "in the past" is a adverb phrase modifying the verb. Unlike noun modifiers, which under most conditions must obey the "modifier touch rule", verb modifiers have a little more flexibility. I would argue that in "...it would have conceded to rivals in the past" the phrase "in the past" still clearly refers to the verb "conceded", because "in the past" is inherently an adverbial phrase, and cannot modify a noun --- if we want to modify the noun "rivals," the phrase "rivals in the past" sounds incredibly awkward, much less elegant than "past rivals."
更晕了！这样说，OG12上的解释岂不错了？求救，大牛！

DUKB24 · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:14:29

其实我觉得这个in the past

放在rival后面是没有歧义，只是不好而已，因为modifier放在verb动词后面直接做verb modifier

如果真要说过去的对手，也不应该要用in，应该是rival of the past才对

这题prep有道题很像：

The proliferation of so-calledcybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of

high-profile companies in hopes ofreselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to passing the

Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer ProtectionAct in 1999, allowing companies to seek up to $100,000

in damages against those who register domainnames with the sole intent of selling them later.

(A) passing the Anti-CybersquattingConsumer Protection Act in 1999, allowing companies to seek

up to $100,000 in damages against thosewho register domain names with the sole intent of selling

(B) the passage of theAnti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows

companies to seek up to $100,000 indamages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent that they will sell

(C) the passage in 1999 of theAnti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows

companies to seek up to $100,000 indamages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent of selling

(D) the Anti-Cybersquatting ConsumerProtection Act, which was passed in 1999, and it allows

companies to seek up to $100,000 indamages against those who register domain names with the

sole intent to sell

(E) the Anti-Cybersquatting ConsumerProtection Act, passed in 1999 and allowing companies to

seek up to $100,000 in damages againstthose who register domain names with the sole intent of

selling

注意到in 1999的位置没有，其实in1999这里是没有歧义的，如果硬要说他修饰act的话

也应该是用the act of 1999

in 1999的问题是由于后面的which引起的，act要在which的前面，而不是1999

liliannechang · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:21:53

谢谢DUKB24，太感动了，神速啊！讲解的也很清楚，我明白了，但还得多看看消化下！
上次也是你帮我讲明白的，太谢谢啦！嘿嘿！

starlitcream · 发表于 2012-11-6 20:46:03

嗯嗯大大大好人

og12-sc-7 previously & in the past

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()